Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

It has been proven: bikinis make men dumb.

In the “bikini” experiments, Belgian researchers conducted a series of tests on 358 young men. In one test, the men looked at images of women in bikinis or lingerie and at images of landscapes. In another, some men were given T-shirts to handle and assess while others were given bras. Another batch of men was assigned to watch a commercial featuring men running over landscapes while other guys watched a video of “hundreds of young women, dressed in bikinis running across hills, fields and beaches.” (No word on whether they used “Baywatch” slo-mo).

In each test, the researchers offered the men the choice between being paid 15 euros immediately or bargaining for a larger sum that they'd be willing to wait a week or a month for. In all the tests, the men exposed to the sexy imagery or bras cited delayed reward amounts that were lower than the amounts cited by the men who saw sex-neutral imagery. For example, while a man who looked at landscapes might have demanded an extra payment of 10 euros a month later (totaling 25), the bikini-gazer might have been willing to settle for five extra (totaling 20). The sexy imagery did not work on all men all the time, but, as a group, men with sex on their brains settled for a less lucrative bargain, suggesting they were more impulsive and valued immediate gratification more than the controls.

“I observed in my studies that men are more likely to pick a smaller immediate reward over a larger later reward,” Bram van den Bergh, the study’s lead author, tells me. “Hence I do think that men might spend money on something they might otherwise not purchase. Men would become more impulsive in any domain after exposure to sexual cues.”

Sexy ‘tunnel vision’

This jibes with the findings of a 2006 paper, “Heat of the Moment: The Effect of Sexual Arousal on Sexual Decision Making.” George Loewenstein of Carnegie Mellon University and Dan Ariely of MIT, found that sexually aroused men would do all sorts of things they might not otherwise do.

To study this effect, they asked men to masturbate while answering a series of questions on a computer. (They helpfully created a system that could be operated with one hand.) For example, 42 percent of non-aroused men thought women’s shoes were erotic. But 65 percent of aroused men thought so. Nineteen percent of non-aroused men said they would agree to sex in a threesome with another man and a woman, while 34 percent of aroused men said so. Less than half, 46 percent, of non-aroused men said they would encourage a date to drink to increase the chance she would have sex with them, but 63 percent of aroused men said so.

Loewenstein, one of the founders of the field of neuroeconomics, which links the workings of our brains to economic and other human interactions, sometimes using machines like functional magnetic resonance imaging to literally watch brain regions light up, says that sex and other strong drives “produce a kind of tunnel vision.”

“Drives are designed to motivate you to focus on specific goals; they have evolved for that purpose, to focus on the goal to the exclusion of other goals or considerations,” he says.

So a man who is aroused literally narrows his view of the world. When we’re thinking about sex, pretty much all we can think about is sex. So a man might do things he would not otherwise do (spending an hour surfing a Jennifer Love Hewitt fan site), or may behave in a seemingly irresponsible manner (skipping the condom).

In fact, studies have shown that sexy ads don’t really make men remember the product. We’re so lasered in on the sexy stuff, we don’t care what brand of beer it is, or how long it takes the car to go from zero to 60.

What about a Beckham effect?

None of this excuses bad boy behavior, but it may help women understand why even a choir boy is tough to dissuade once he’s built up a head of steam.

Whether or not women are as blinded by sex as men remains an open question. Would a picture of David Beckham in briefs influence a woman to pass up a bigger payout? Maybe, but the studies on sexual arousal and decision-making have mostly been done on men, so the verdict is out.

In general, though, all our brains, Loewenstein believes, can be thought of as being of “two minds,” there is the “affective system,” (“Dude! Who cares what it costs! She’s hot!”) which answers to our basic drives, and the deliberative system (“That’s your IRA contribution!”). To think of this another way, picture an angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other. Even in the heat of the moment, there is still that little voice that says "You know you are making a mistake" — the trouble is it gets drowned out by the volume of the affective system.

We are constantly negotiating between these two systems, which is why economists are so interested; it’s how we make purchasing decisions. It may also explain the morning-after walk of shame, the overcharged credit card — and “don’t worry, I’ll pull out in time.”

So bikinis ring our affective bells and those things make a lot of noise. Just remember this when you go to the beach, or the pool, or the lake this summer. She may look amazing in that tiny bikini, but try to listen to that little voice that’s whispering “SPF 30,” no matter how uncool you’ll look slathering it on.

tldr; A study showed that men that are exposed to sexually-arousing images during decision-making consistently make worse decisions. They settle for crappier deals that are focused on short-term gain, do irresponsible things, and behave in ways they otherwise wouldn't. Their perception also changes and they find things attractive where they wouldn't find them attractive while not aroused.

This is actually pretty interesting. Turns out there is a scientific basis for one of the most common stereotypes in modern culture. People often joke about how that beer commercial with hot women in it won't make anyone buy that beer, or having semi-naked women in bikinis to showcase that new concept car won't sell it. But turns out it helps... a lot. Perhaps you should wear a bikini before arguing with your boyfriend? Hmmm...

But what is actually intriguing to me is that this sexual drive must have evolved, and along with it, women's taking advantage of this sexual drive might have evolved? (read: is sexual manipulation a partially hardwired behavior?)After all, if your gender has the ability to manipulate the opposite gender in some way and this gives you an evolutionary advantage (i.e. getting your way: money, social status, power, bearing the children of the tribe's chief, etc.) then those members that use the ability will be better at surviving and reproducing, and those who don't will be worse at it. Over hundreds of thousands of years you'll end up with women who are more adept at sexual manipulation than before, and men who are more vulnerable to it (no, i don't suggest all women are manipulative whores, so don't even try it).

Now the big question is whether the so-called "Beckham- effect" exists; do women make worse decisions when sexually aroused? If they do I think we will have caught a glimpse at the fundamentals of the intergender sexual arms race.

edit: part about evolution fixed. sorry about the bad wording.

edit 2: posted the actual study because you people are too fucking lazy to spend 5 seconds on google.

How do they know the men who saw the more sexually stimulating imagery weren't just in better moods and therefore less determined to get more money?

That doesn't matter, because in economic terms, the decision to make less money is a worse decision.

Even in non-monetary terms, the other study showed that sexual arousal changes man's perceptions of what he considers attractive dramatically. The differences in results are well beyond any reasonable margin of error.

So, I assume the men mentioned in the article pass a few basic requirements needed for that specific experiments?

Such as being straight, immediately tying lingerie and bikinis with sex, having super negotiating skills (or precognitive powers to see that a better offer will come), and having exactly the same priorities when it comes to money.

Anyway, I definitely agree with the tunnel vision idea. When I was younger, I could feel a clear, restorative calm descend whenever I finished. And even now, I usually stop being so single minded afterwards.

“I observed in my studies that men are more likely to pick a smaller immediate reward over a larger later reward,”

to here?

“Hence I do think that men might spend money on something they might otherwise not purchase. Men would become more impulsive in any domain after exposure to sexual cues.”

I honestly can't understand how a scientist may say something similar. I have no comment about impulsive, as I don't believe impulsive is "bad" and there are probably 100 other things likely to make you impulsive.

How do they know the men who saw the more sexually stimulating imagery weren't just in better moods and therefore less determined to get more money?

That doesn't matter, because in economic terms, the decision to make less money is a worse decision.

Even in non-monetary terms, the other study showed that sexual arousal changes man's perceptions of what he considers attractive dramatically. The differences in results are well beyond any reasonable margin of error.

Er, your "worse decision" fails to account for externalities. Being generous is only the worse decision in a strictly mathematical sense.

Edit: And it still fails to account for whether this had to do with solely sexual arousal or just a better mood.

â€œI observed in my studies that men are more likely to pick a smaller immediate reward over a larger later reward,â€

to here?

â€œHence I do think that men might spend money on something they might otherwise not purchase. Men would become more impulsive in any domain after exposure to sexual cues.â€

I honestly can't understand how a scientist may say something similar. I have no comment about impulsive, as I don't believe impulsive is "bad" and there are probably 100 other things likely to make you impulsive.

Both of them are financial decisions that involve money. If sexual arousal makes you pick a lesser reward over a greater one (hence, a worse decision), then there's a good chance that it might influence spending behavior similarly.

I like bikinis. They probably do make me dumb. Then againa lady could be wearing a parka and six layers and I'd still drop a few IQ points if I found her attractive. Also my first girl-friend almost made me pass out the first time she smiled at me. I would not know what the equivalent for ladies is, but I'd kill to find out.

How do they know the men who saw the more sexually stimulating imagery weren't just in better moods and therefore less determined to get more money?

That doesn't matter, because in economic terms, the decision to make less money is a worse decision.

Even in non-monetary terms, the other study showed that sexual arousal changes man's perceptions of what he considers attractive dramatically. The differences in results are well beyond any reasonable margin of error.

Er, your "worse decision" fails to account for externalities. Being generous is only the worse decision in a strictly mathematical sense.

Edit: And it still fails to account for whether this had to do with solely sexual arousal or just a better mood.

“I observed in my studies that men are more likely to pick a smaller immediate reward over a larger later reward,”

to here?

“Hence I do think that men might spend money on something they might otherwise not purchase. Men would become more impulsive in any domain after exposure to sexual cues.”

I honestly can't understand how a scientist may say something similar. I have no comment about impulsive, as I don't believe impulsive is "bad" and there are probably 100 other things likely to make you impulsive.

Both of them are financial decisions that involve money. If sexual arousal makes you pick a lesser reward over a greater one (hence, a worse decision), then there's a good chance that it might influence spending behavior similarly.

Are you saying that making a bad decision which still has a net positive effect is a sign that you're likely to make a bad decision with overall negative effect? I'm sorry. That's impossible to accept.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that sexual arousal impairs men's judgment and makes them more impulsive.

I draw the line at suggesting that women have evolved to use this effect to their advantage.

Do you draw it at the word "evolve" or at the sense of the statement? Because personally I have little doubt women do use it to their advantage, I'm just not sure it's an actual evolutionary trait. It could be, I guess.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that sexual arousal impairs men's judgment and makes them more impulsive.

I draw the line at suggesting that women have evolved to use this effect to their advantage.

Do you draw it at the word "evolve" or at the sense of the statement? Because personally I have little doubt women do use it to their advantage, I'm just not sure it's an actual evolutionary trait. It could be, I guess.

Yeah, I'd buy that some ladies use it to their advantage because of societal norms and customs, but not that they're somehow wired from birth for it.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that sexual arousal impairs men's judgment and makes them more impulsive.

I draw the line at suggesting that women have evolved to use this effect to their advantage.

Especially since I'd wager that women put through similar tests would produce similar results. Seems rather foolish to claim women alone have developed an adaptation to this before trying to see if they're equally effected themselves.

How do they know the men who saw the more sexually stimulating imagery weren't just in better moods and therefore less determined to get more money?

That doesn't matter, because in economic terms, the decision to make less money is a worse decision.

Even in non-monetary terms, the other study showed that sexual arousal changes man's perceptions of what he considers attractive dramatically. The differences in results are well beyond any reasonable margin of error.

Er, your "worse decision" fails to account for externalities. Being generous is only the worse decision in a strictly mathematical sense.

Edit: And it still fails to account for whether this had to do with solely sexual arousal or just a better mood.

I fail to see how "better mood" translates to "being less determined to get more money." This is IRT to your original quote.

Even a non-greedy rational person will choose to get more money over less money. The only thing I can think of - maybe this is what you're hinting at - that might convolute the reasoning of the conclusion is that of the diminishing marginal value of money, i.e. an additional ten dollars will mean less to a rich person than to a poor person.

“I observed in my studies that men are more likely to pick a smaller immediate reward over a larger later reward,”

to here?

“Hence I do think that men might spend money on something they might otherwise not purchase. Men would become more impulsive in any domain after exposure to sexual cues.”

I honestly can't understand how a scientist may say something similar. I have no comment about impulsive, as I don't believe impulsive is "bad" and there are probably 100 other things likely to make you impulsive.

Because the immediate reward is the shiny item you want to purchase, at the cost of saving your money for a wiser investment in the future.

Are you saying that making a bad decision which still has a net positive effect is a sign that you're likely to make a bad decision with overall negative effect? I'm sorry. That's impossible to accept.

A bad decision is a sign of bad decision making ability. You see a brand new iPhone and you want it, but you've not thought about your total financial situation or other phones, but you buy it anyway. That's a bad decision, even if, say, two months later, the monthly plan for an iPhone is cut in half making the result of the decision good after the fact.

I fail to see how "better mood" translates to "being less determined to get more money." This is IRT to your original quote.

Even a non-greedy rational person will choose to get more money over less money. The only thing I can think of - maybe this is what you're hinting at - that might convolute the reasoning of the conclusion is that of the diminishing marginal value of money, i.e. an additional ten dollars will mean less to a rich person than to a poor person.

Hard to say.

Totally off the top of my head - desire to appear less greedy and boost self esteem. In the "I'm buying a hybrid...tomorrow.."-way. I can probably think of 10 more psychological reasons to take less money.
That was just nitpicking though, I do agree that sexual arousal def influences men, I just don't think the conclusion was sound.

How do they know the men who saw the more sexually stimulating imagery weren't just in better moods and therefore less determined to get more money?

That doesn't matter, because in economic terms, the decision to make less money is a worse decision.

Even in non-monetary terms, the other study showed that sexual arousal changes man's perceptions of what he considers attractive dramatically. The differences in results are well beyond any reasonable margin of error.

Er, your "worse decision" fails to account for externalities. Being generous is only the worse decision in a strictly mathematical sense.

Edit: And it still fails to account for whether this had to do with solely sexual arousal or just a better mood.

I fail to see how "better mood" translates to "being less determined to get more money." This is IRT to your original quote.

Even a non-greedy rational person will choose to get more money over less money. The only thing I can think of - maybe this is what you're hinting at - that might convolute the reasoning of the conclusion is that of the diminishing marginal value of money, i.e. an additional ten dollars will mean less to a rich person than to a poor person.

Hard to say.

Yea, I mean this was haggling, right? The scientists didn't go "So, you want $10 or $20?" and have the dudes jump all over the $10, right? When it comes to haggling, most people stop at what seems like a fair deal and I getting paid to look at some titties seems like a fair deal to me.

People who watch a movie they enjoy are also less likely to demand a refund.

"Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity

I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that sexual arousal impairs men's judgment and makes them more impulsive.

I draw the line at suggesting that women have evolved to use this effect to their advantage.

Especially since I'd wager that women put through similar tests would produce similar results. Seems rather foolish to claim women alone have developed an adaptation to this before trying to see if they're equally effected themselves.

I never claimed that women alone have developed the adaptation. It's just that, given the information we have, that is as far as one can go at the moment.

That's why I said it will be interesting to see if women are vulnerable to a Beckham effect.

Dude, you realize immediate vs. long-term gratification studies are pretty standard, and have been tied to pretty much any reminder of potential benefits?

I mean, they could have shown them videos of cookies, and it would most likely skew the same way.

But, anyways: Rationality studies are always awesome. My favorite is still the Milgram Obedience experiment, because everyone insists it totally wouldn't have worked on them. It's very edifying to find out just how often we shut off rational thought in favor of situational reactions.

I fail to see how "better mood" translates to "being less determined to get more money." This is IRT to your original quote.

Even a non-greedy rational person will choose to get more money over less money. The only thing I can think of - maybe this is what you're hinting at - that might convolute the reasoning of the conclusion is that of the diminishing marginal value of money, i.e. an additional ten dollars will mean less to a rich person than to a poor person.

Hard to say.

People in a good mood are more generous. As in not as greedy. As in they don't care whether they get ten or five euros extra because, hey, they just got fifteen for watching bikini clad women run around for the past two hours.

Have the same men broken up into groups spending their time either doing math problems or watching soccer while eating and you'll see the same result.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that sexual arousal impairs men's judgment and makes them more impulsive.

I draw the line at suggesting that women have evolved to use this effect to their advantage.

Especially since I'd wager that women put through similar tests would produce similar results. Seems rather foolish to claim women alone have developed an adaptation to this before trying to see if they're equally effected themselves.

I never claimed that women alone have developed the adaptation. It's just that, given the information we have, that is as far as one can go at the moment.

That's why I said it will be interesting to see if women are vulnerable to a Beckham effect.

Could you explain what is backing up your statement about evolution of women, if, as you said, it's not the studies linked in the OP?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that sexual arousal impairs men's judgment and makes them more impulsive.

I draw the line at suggesting that women have evolved to use this effect to their advantage.

Especially since I'd wager that women put through similar tests would produce similar results. Seems rather foolish to claim women alone have developed an adaptation to this before trying to see if they're equally effected themselves.

I suspect that you would find similar results, but if the medium the women were exposed to was strictly visual+sexual, the effect wouldn't be nearly as large as in men. Comparing the effects of Harlequin romance novels on women to Playboy on men would be much more interesting.

Also, the results of the studies in the OP do not shock me at all. There's only so much blood to go around and when it's diverted away from the brain...

I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.

How do they know the men who saw the more sexually stimulating imagery weren't just in better moods and therefore less determined to get more money?

That doesn't matter, because in economic terms, the decision to make less money is a worse decision.

Even in non-monetary terms, the other study showed that sexual arousal changes man's perceptions of what he considers attractive dramatically. The differences in results are well beyond any reasonable margin of error.

Er, your "worse decision" fails to account for externalities. Being generous is only the worse decision in a strictly mathematical sense.

Edit: And it still fails to account for whether this had to do with solely sexual arousal or just a better mood.

I fail to see how "better mood" translates to "being less determined to get more money." This is IRT to your original quote.

Even a non-greedy rational person will choose to get more money over less money. The only thing I can think of - maybe this is what you're hinting at - that might convolute the reasoning of the conclusion is that of the diminishing marginal value of money, i.e. an additional ten dollars will mean less to a rich person than to a poor person.

Hard to say.

Yea, I mean this was haggling, right? The scientists didn't go "So, you want $10 or $20?" and have the dudes jump all over the $10, right? When it comes to haggling, most people stop at what seems like a fair deal and I getting paid to look at some titties seems like a fair deal to me.

People who watch a movie they enjoy are also less likely to demand a refund.

Read the study:

"In each test, the researchers offered the men the choice between being paid 15 euros immediately or bargaining for a larger sum that they'd be willing to wait a week or a month for. In all the tests, the men exposed to the sexy imagery or bras cited delayed reward amounts that were lower than the amounts cited by the men who saw sex-neutral imagery. For example, while a man who looked at landscapes might have demanded an extra payment of 10 euros a month later (totaling 25), the bikini-gazer might have been willing to settle for five extra (totaling 20). The sexy imagery did not work on all men all the time, but, as a group, men with sex on their brains settled for a less lucrative bargain, suggesting they were more impulsive and valued immediate gratification more than the controls."

So yes, they were offered the choice. It was between less money now and more money later. The sexually aroused ones tended to favor the former.